Theos-Talk Archives (July 2000 Message tt00054)

July 29th 2000

As Daniel refers to statements attributed to Reed Carson of
blavatsky.net I am also sending this for their consideration.

In regard to the Gelugpa tradition (whether of Tsong-Kha-Pa or
his successors) and the Theosophical teachings as found in the
SD.  Both are, as far as I can understand, expressions of the
same kind of metaphysical facts relating to the foundation of
things as they are.  An example comes to mind:   a Frenchman
dealing with Astrophysics might define ideas and facts in his
language and a German or English-speaking scientist might use
words (or variants) from their own languages to make comparable
expressions.  So too, in ancient or modern expressions that deal
with metaphysics.

As I understand it these are:

1.	A universal SOURCE of wisdom, based on experience over
enormous time-periods of the laws that govern the processes of
living, evolution, thinking, perception, conclusion-determining,
etc...

2.	A consistent base for the recording of such observations in a
supersensuous, Spiritual substance such as the Akasa, or
Suddha-Sattwa, or Maha-Buddhi.

3.	An enormous congeries of individualized points of
consciousness which in themselves unite the diversities of :
1.  unlimited SPIRIT, as base and source of "Perfection."
		2.  limited forms of "matter," and
		3.  The power to perceive both of these diverse polar opposites
and to watch their interaction and record such evidence of
repetitive continuities as might be discovered through impartial
and continuous observation.  This would necessitate the concept
of the "MONAD."  (A name given, meaning "unit" to such
individualized points of perceptive life and living.

The words may differ, and certainly translators can add their
views -- so if differences or similarities are to be looked for,
would this not entertain a brotherhood in thinking about such
fundamentals.  I would try to see if the similarities
out-weighted the differences in all fairness to the questions
raised.

One of our difficulties is, as HPB points out, our own limited
embodiment, and therefore limited ratiocination.  However, the
fact that we can conceive of something that transcends such
limits, would indicate to me that there is in each of us an
aspect of THOUGHT and the POWER TO THINK which is not subject to
those limits.  This gives the deepest thinkers room to speculate
on infinitudes and a timeless program of experience in learning.
Eventually even the (at present) slowest and densest unit will
eventually learn of and spontaneously begin to manifest their own
innate and unlimited power.

It appears to me that we are held back by our own assumed limits.
Is this truly so?  Are we not able to circumvent those?  If so,
how?  What is it in us that urges us to seek, to arise from our
rest, and becoming "awake" to seek for the causes and processes
that so envelop us today.

If such be the case, while the vehicle might alter (the words)
the IDEAS would still be as a whole a continuity, or something on
which everyone would meet in cooperation and unity.

To seek for similarities of expression is very useful, but then
to extent those, is an act of progression, and is not that the
area in which we all live and advance?

Hope this may prove to be helpful,

Dallas

D. T. B.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com
[mailto:owner-theos-talk@theosophy.com]On Behalf Of Daniel
Caldwell
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 7:13 AM
To: danielhcaldwell@yahoo.com
Subject: Theos-World The Gelugpa Tradition and THE SECRET
DOCTRINE on the Absolute

SUBJECT:  The Gelugpa Tradition and THE SECRET
DOCTRINE on the Absolute

Reed Carson wrote:

". . . Theosophy does consider itself close to the
gelugpa tradition of
Tsongkhapa."

But what does the Gelugpa tradition think about what
is said in H.P.B.'s SECRET DOCTRINE about the
Absolute?

First, here are three quotes about the Absolute from
the SD:

QUOTE 1
"It is the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet
Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical
in its regular manifestations, between which periods
reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet
absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one
self-existing reality; truly, "a chaos to the sense, a
Kosmos to the reason." Its one absolute attribute,
which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called
in esoteric parlance the "Great Breath,"* which is the
perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of
limitless, ever-present SPACE. That which is
motionless cannot be Divine. But then there is nothing
in fact and reality absolutely motionless within the
universal soul." Vol. 1, Page 2

QUOTE 2
"The Secret Doctrine establishes three fundamental
propositions: --

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable
PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible,
since it transcends the power of human conception and
could only be dwarfed by any human expression or
similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of
thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and
unspeakable."

To render these ideas clearer to the general reader,
let him set out with the postulate that there is one
absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested,
conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause --
dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable"
of current European philosophy -- is the rootless root
of "all that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of
course devoid of all attributes and is essentially
without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It
is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and
is beyond all thought or speculation.

This "Be-ness" is symbolised in the Secret Doctrine
under two aspects. On the one hand, absolute abstract
Space, representing bare subjectivity, the one thing
which no human mind can either exclude from any
conception, or conceive of by itself. On the other,
absolute Abstract Motion representing Unconditioned
Consciousness. Even our Western thinkers have shown
that Consciousness is inconceivable to us apart from
change, and motion best symbolises change, its
essential characteristic. This latter aspect of the
one Reality, is also symbolised by the term "The Great
Breath," a symbol sufficiently graphic to need no
further elucidation. Thus, then, the first fundamental
axiom of the Secret Doctrine is this metaphysical ONE
ABSOLUTE -- BE-NESS -- symbolised by finite
intelligence as the theological Trinity."   Vol. 1,
Page 14

QUOTE 3
"The ABSOLUTE; the Parabrahm of the Vedantins or the
one Reality, SAT, which is, as Hegel says, both
Absolute Being and Non-Being."
Vol. 1, Page 16


Does the Gelugpa tradition in Tibet agree with THE
SECRET DOCTRINE's view of the Absolute?

In David Reigle's new book on Theosophy, we find the
following:

"Tsong-kha-pa's Critique of the Jonangpa Teachings

The Jonangpa teaching of a permanent, stable,
quiescent, and eternal dhatu
or tathagata-garbha or dharma-kaya which is "empty of
other" (gzhan stong)
and therefore ultimately beyond the range and reach of
thought, was
apparently criticized by Tsong-kha-pa, founder of the
Gelugpa or "Yellow
Hat" order. One of Tsong-kha-pa's most famous books is
the Legs bshad snying po, or "Essence of True
Eloquence," which he wrote after emerging from his
highest enlightenment experience, so it is thought to
give his final insights. While it never mentions
names, the object of much of its
critique is identified by Gelugpa exegesis as Dolpopa
and the Jonangpa teachings. Tsong-kha-pa, 1357-1419,
lived just after Dolpopa, 1292-1361. This critique is
of much importance to Theosophists, since Dolpopa
apparently teaches the first fundamental proposition
of The Secret Doctrine, and Tsong-kha-pa apparently
refutes it; yet Tsong-kha-pa is regarded by
Theosophists as "the reformer of esoteric as well as
of vulgar Lamaism," and as "the founder of the Gelukpa
("yellow-cap") Sect, and of the mystic Brotherhood
connected with its cheifs," "the founder of the secret
School near Shigatse, attached to the private retreat
of the Teshu-Lama."

So Reigle contends that Tsong-kha-pa and the Gelugpa
tradition apparently refute the first fundamental
proposition of "The Secret Doctrine."

Stephen Batchelor writes on this same subject:

"The Nyingma teaching of Dzogchen regards awareness
(Tib. rig pa) as the
innate self-cognizant foundation of both samsara and
nirvana.  Rig pa is the intrinsic, uncontrived nature
of mind, which a Dzongchen master is capable of
directly pointing out to this students.  For the
Nyingmapa, Dzongchen represents the very apogee of
what the Buddha taught, WHEREAS Tsongkhapa's view of
emptiness as just a negation of inherent existence,
implying no transcendent reality, verges on nihilism."

Quoted from an article "Letting Daylight into Magic:
The life and times
of Dorje Shugden" by , TRICYCLE, Spring 1998.

Verges on nihilism?  Is Batchelor saying that
Tsongkhapa's view is that there is "no transcendent
reality"?  Does that mean that in Tsongkhapa's view
there could be no Absolute as taught in the SECRET
DOCTRINE?

Let me now refer to the book titled:

THE BUDDHA WITHIN:  Tathagatagarbha Doctrine According
to the Shentong Interpretation of the
Ratnagotravibhaga by S. K. Hookham.

A brief description of this book is as follows:

"Tathagatagarbha -- Buddha Nature -- is a central
concept of Mahayana
Buddhism crucial to all the living practice traditions
of Tibetan and Zen
Buddhism. Its relationship to the concept of emptiness
has been a subject of controversy for seven hundred
years. Dr. Hookam's work investigates the
DIVERGENT interpretations of these concepts and the
way the Tibetan tradition is resolving them. In
particular she does this with reference to the only
surviving Indian commentary on the Tathagatagarbha
doctrine, the Ratnagotravibhaga. This text addresses
itself directly to the issue of how to relate the
doctrine of emptiness (the illusory nature of the
world) to that of the truly existing, changeless
Absolute (the Buddha Nature)."

Dr. Hookham points out that the Gelugpa tradition does
NOT believe in a "truly existing, changless Absolute
(the Buddha Nature)."  If this is true, does this also
rule out the Absolute as described in the SD?

Mention has been made above of the Tibetan Master
Dolpopa.  There is a newly published book on his life
and teachings titled THE BUDDHA FROM DOLPO: A Study of
the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa
Sherab
Gyaltsen by Cyrus Stearns.

Here is a brief description of the book:

" 'The Buddha from Dolpo' examines the life and
thought of the Tibetan Buddhist master, Dolpopa Sherab
Gyaltsen (1292- 1361). Known as "The Buddha from
Dolpo," he was one of the most important and original
thinkers in Tibetan history, and perhaps the greatest
expert on the tantric teachings of the Kalacakra or
"Wheel of Time." Based largely upon esoteric Buddhist
knowledge believed to be preserved in the legendary
land of Shambhala, Dolpopa's theories continue to
excite controversy in Tibetan Buddhism after almost
700 years."

"Dolpopa emphasized two contrasting definitions of the
Buddhist teachings of emptiness: "emptiness of
self-nature," which applies only to the level of
relative truth, and "emptiness of other," which
applies only to the level of absolute truth. Dolpopa
identified ultimate reality as the Buddha-nature
inherent in all living beings. This view of an
"emptiness of other," known in Tibetan as Zhentong, is
Dolpopa's main spiritual legacy."

This book also indicates that the Gelugpa tradition
was against Dolpopa's teaching that there is indeed an
"ultimate reality" and that this ultimate reality is
"the Buddha-nature inherent in all living beings."  If
this is true, does the Gelugpa view also rule out the
Absolute as described in the SD?


David Need in a review of Hookham's book THE BUDDHA
WITHIN goes into the topic a little bit more:

"In  'The  Buddha  Within,'  Dr.   S.  K.  Hookham
reworks  her
dissertation   (Oxford,  1986)  outlining   the
Shentong
tradition   in  Tibet  and  its  view  of  ultimate
reality.
"Shentong" (gzhan stong, other-empty) is a term used
in Tibet
to  refer  to  a  view  of  ultimate   reality  as  a
wisdom
consciousness  empty  or free  of the illusory
phenomena  of
conditioned  existence.  Such  a view  owes  heavily
to  the
description  of  ultimate  reality  in  the
Tathaga-tagarbha
Sutras and in the tantras.  One of the earliest
proponents of
this view was the Jo-nang-pa scholar, Dolpopa Shetab
Gyaltsen
(dol-po-pa  shes-rab  rgyal-mtshan, 1292-1361), whose
massive
study  titled  The  Mountain  Dharma: An Ocean  of
Definitive
Meaning (rl chos nges don rgya mtsho) outlined this
doctrine,
extensively  citing  from sutra and tantra in support
of his
position. The Shentong position advanced by Dolpopa .
. . was the
object of sustained critique by scholars of other
schools - notably those
of the Geluk-pa  traditions  who advanced  what  is
called  a
"rangtong" (rang stong, self-empty) view of ultimate
reality.

"These  scholars  held  the ultimate  truth  to be an
existent
object of knowledge cognized by a wisdom
consciousness.  Such
an  object  of  a  wisdom  consciousness  is  held  to
 be  a
nonaffirming negative--the  absence of the inherent
existence
of any given phenomena, most importantly  the self.
Shentong
advocates  argue that this view of ultimate reality
fails to
account  adequately  for  the  qualities  associated
with  a
Buddha's  wisdom, although  it does account for the
nature of
illusory phenomena."

"The  political  upheaval  in the  sixteenth  and
seventeenth
centuries  that  led  to  the  ascendency   of  the
Geluk-pa
tradition and to the establishment  of the Fifth Dalai
Lama's
government also brought with it the eventual censoring
of the
Shentong position.  The literature  of Shentong
advocates was
banned, and wood  blocks  and extant  texts  were
seized  and
destroyed  or sequestered.  While these actions  seem
to have
been  politically  motivated, the effect  was  the
partial
silencing  of an important and vital stream of
interpretation
and thought.  Dr.  Hookham expressly  indicates  that
she has
published her work in order to bring this tradition to
light,
noting  that, until  now,  most  Western  academic
works  on
Tibetan Buddhist views of ultimate reality have used
Geluk-pa
sources  and hence have not presented  a fair account
of this
alternate tradition."

Quoted from the review by David Need in "Philosophy
East & West",  Vol.43 No.3, Jul. 1993, Pp.585-588.

So to students of Blavatsky's SECRET DOCTRINE, I ask:


What are the views of Tsong-kha-pa and the Gelugpas on
the first fundamental proposition of the SD?

Do they deny such an Absolute?

And if so, what do they offer in its place?

I believe this subject matter on the Absolute is also
relevant to the previous discussion by Reed Carson and
others on anatman.



=====
Daniel H. Caldwell
DanielhCaldwell@yahoo.com
Blavatsky Archives Online
http://sites.netscape.net/dhcblainfo/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk --
theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting
of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.